This
matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment
by defendant Elite Audio Visual Solutions
(“Elite”). (DN 18.) Fully briefed, this matter is
ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the motion is
GRANTED.

I.
Background

This
case arises from Elite's employment of plaintiff Hugh P.
(“Pat”) McLeish from December 17, 2012, to
October 29, 2015. When McLeish was hired by Elite, he was 49
years old. (Dep. McLeish [DN 18-4] at 27:19-21.) McLeish
worked for Elite as the director of audio visual at two
hotels in Nevada and California before being transferred to
Louisville in May 2015. (Id. at 27:22-28:2,
40:16-42:3, 44:11-18.) He worked at three hotels while in
Louisville, eventually becoming the “director of audio
visual” at the Crowne Plaza on July 1, 2015.
(Id. at 56:6-8.) McLeish was the highest-ranking
Elite employee at the Crowne Plaza and reported directly to
Chad Lucas, the CEO of Elite. (Id. at 74:2-5,
61:10-14.)

Beginning
“the first day” of his employment at the Crowne
Plaza, Elite began to receive complaints from Amy
Falkenstein, the director of catering at the Crowne Plaza,
about McLeish's performance of his on-site duties.
(Id. at 75:21-77:9.) These complaints were
“occasional but ongoing” from July onward.
(Id. at 77:1-3.) Emails sent by Falkenstein at the
time these issues arose show that McLeish and his staff
regularly failed to provide the necessary audio and visual
equipment to meeting rooms in a timely manner and that
Falkenstein was not satisfied with Elite's overall
performance. (Falkenstein September 30 Email [DN 18-10] at 2;
Falkenstein October 8 Email [DN 10-14] at 1.) Following
receipt of these complaints, Elite, through its CEO Lucas,
attempted to implement changes that would rectify some of
these issues, including changes to when McLeish was to have
audio and visual equipment set up and how the Crowne Plaza
would be staffed. (Dep. McLeish [DN 18-4] at 102:6-105:7;
Lucas October 8 email [DN 18-15] at 1-4.)

Even
after these changes were made, Lucas continued to receive
complaints about McLeish's performance at the Crowne
Plaza. (Falkenstein October 12 Email [DN 18-16] at 1.) On
October 14, McLeish sent Lucas an email in which he stated
that “[n]o one is happy with the job I am doing here,
including me. I am no longer certain what that job is, what
the priorities are, or where it is going.” (McLeish
October 14 Email [DN 18-17] at 1.) He continued that he saw
“three scenarios, ” which included a
“[w]orst case scenario” of a “[d]ramatic
departure. I slam my keys on [Falkenstein]'s desk.”
(Id.) His “[b]est case scenario” was
that “[e]verything works out this week. I continue here
until the end of the year.” (Id.) His
“[r]ealist scenario” was that he “give
[his] 30-45 day notice. You use this time to hire, train and
acclimate my replacement. I pledge to my absolute best to
initiate the changes in your plan for here . . . I will do
everything I can to make for a smooth transition.”
(Id.) He concluded by stating that “[i]t is
very important to me to leave ELITE on the best note
possible. I hope we can make that happen.”
(Id.)

After
receiving this email, McLeish and Lucas spoke on the phone,
and Lucas states that he and McLeish agreed that McLeish
would remain at his position until the end of 2015. (Aff.
Chad Lucas [DN 18-12] ¶ 5.) On October 14, McLeish also
received an email from Jim Forrest, the director of event
technology at the Galt House for Elite, offering advice as to
how he runs his operation and how it could be implemented at
the Crowne Plaza. (Forrest October 14 Email [DN 18-18] at
1-4.) However, Lucas continued to receive complaints from
Falkenstein and other Crowne Plaza staff over the next few
days. (Falkenstein October 15 Email [DN 18-19] at 1;
Falkenstein October 20 Email [DN 18-20] at 1; Falkenstein
October 20 Email [DN 18-21] at 1.) In response to these
complaints, Elite president Lawrence Williams visited the
Crowne Plaza on October 21 and 22 and met with McLeish.
(Williams October 22 Email [DN 18-22] at 2-4.) Williams
observed that McLeish's staff felt that they needed more
training but McLeish could not offer it to them; that the
equipment storeroom “was not clean, organized or
secured;” and that overall his “observation of
Pat and his operation was very disappointing[, f]rom the lack
of attention to details, his lack of organization,
enthusiastic but poorly trained staff, unprofessional
emotional state of mind and his lack of timeliness and
absents on the floor[.]” (Id.)

On
October 23, McLeish then emailed Lucas and stated that
Williams' visit “did not change my perception that
this is not a winning situation for me. This position needs a
great administrator. I am not that person.” (McLeish
October 23 Email [DN 18-23] at 1.) He reiterated that he
would “stay at [his] job through the remainder of
2015.” (Id.) McLeish denies that this was a
letter of resignation, but he did testify that he was
concerned that he might be relieved of his position at this
point “because [he] had been getting repeated
complaints from [Falkenstein], and the visit with [Williams]
did not go that well.” (Dep. McLeish [DN 18-4] at
133:25-134:12.)

On
October 28, McLeish sent an email to four Elite employees,
including Jim Forrest, requesting certain pieces of equipment
to be set up that night. (McLeish October 28 Email [DN 18-25]
at 2-3.) Forrest replied with concerns about McLeish's
plan to obtain the equipment, chastising McLeish for the
failure to arrange for the equipment to be brought in sooner
and seeking an explanation for the miscommunication.
(Id. at 2.) McLeish then replied, “How about
fuck off Jim. I will not be [coming] to get that gear after
all.” (Id. at 1.) On either October 29 or 30,
McLeish spoke on the phone to Lucas who told him that he was
“letting [him] go.” (Dep. McLeish [DN 18-4] at
175:18-23; Lucas Aff. [DN 18-12] ¶ 7.)

McLeish
sent an email to Nicole Duran, Elite's vice-president of
finance, on November 9, in which he stated that there was
some confusion over how his employment ended. (McLeish
November 9 Email [DN 18-29] at 1.) He stated that
“either I was terminated on 10/30/15 for reasons not
yet specified; or my two week resignation that would have
been effective 11/1/15 was accepted by ELITE.”
(Id.) Duran responded by stating that, “On Oct
23rd, you submitted notice of intent to resign from your
position with ELITE due to an inability to consistently meet
the basic requirements of the job. ELITE chose to forgo your
notice and dismiss you earlier than your requested last day
of employment (end of 2015) based on your lack of performance
and your unprofessional treatment of coworkers and ELITE
customer(s).” (Id.)

On
October 29 and 30, McLeish was 52 years old. (Dep. McLeish
[DN 18-4] at 27:19- 21.) Elite's operations at the Crowne
Plaza were temporarily managed by Antonio Allen, a
23-year-old male, after McLeish's employment ended, but
Elite ultimately filled McLeish's former position with an
unnamed 32-year-old male. (Lucas Aff. [DN 18-12] ¶ 10.)

McLeish
filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in Kentucky.
(EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights [DN 18-30] at 1.) This
charge was dismissed, and McLeish subsequently filed the
present complaint against Elite, alleging that he was
terminated due to his age in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”). Elite has now
moved for summary judgment as to both claims. (DN 18.)

II.
Standard of Review

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Before
the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must
find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the
initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and
identifying that portion of the record that demonstrates the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the
moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.